David Capes
Yes, that’s said in the genealogy?
Caleb Friedeman
Correct.
David Capes
Okay, that goes over into chapter 3, then as well.
Caleb Friedeman
Yes, and that’s another interesting piece of it too. If we’re asking where Luke’s birth material is, he includes the genealogy later in the midst of adult material. Which again, makes It very difficult at that point if you want to hold the legendary intent hypothesis. Because what is going to cue the reader to shift from reading historically? Because the first part of Luke 3 is about Jesus’ adulthood, then you go to ahistorical in the genealogy, and then back to historically in the temptation, which comes right after the genealogy. That doesn’t really make sense.
Here’s the other really interesting thing to me, though. If that analysis is correct, and Luke employs historiographic features 1,2,3.4, times. Three instances of sources and one instance of evaluation. I can’t find anywhere else in the Gospel of Luke where he does that, where he employs historiographic features. So that would actually mean he uses historiographic features more in the birth material and in relation to the birth material than he does in relation to the rest of the life. So obviously Luke 1:1-4 is going to apply to the whole life. But that gives you one use of sources, the historiographic feature for the whole life, where you actually have three other historiographic features that pertain specifically to
the birth material. So if there’s any material in the Gospel of Luke, that we should be clear that it’s intended to be historical, it’s the birth material.
David Capes
It’s right there because it has those markers as opposed to every other place. Well, that’s fascinating. That really is fascinating. Your next job is to parse all this out. You’ve clearly made the case that it’s the intent of Matthew and Luke to write a historical account of the birth in the origin stories of Jesus. Now we got to go into the story itself and to carefully go through and to make some judgments about individual pericope or episodes within that material.
Caleb Friedeman
Yes. I think one of the interesting things about making that kind of case is the point that I make about time elapsed regarding Matthew and Luke versus other ancient biographers. I mentioned earlier that we have 360 years on average between the subject’s birth and when people like Nepos, Philo, and Plutarch Suetonius are writing about their lives.
Obviously, scholars take different positions as to when the Gospels were written. But, if you just take a fairly consensus date of, let’s say somewhere in the 70s. 70 to 80 let’s say for both Matthew and Luke, well, that would mean that they’re far closer. Closer by centuries, almost three centuries closer than most ancient biographers were, most of the time to the events they’re writing about. And probably would have had access to sources that accord with that kind of distance. So potentially an eyewitness source, or at least someone who would have known an eyewitness.
David Capes
Yes, and that’s part of Richard Bauckham’s case in his book, “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.” Well, we’ve got to come back to this, and we’re going to follow what you’re going to say about it in the next few years. Because I have a feeling there’s some articles and there’s some books following up on this. It needs to be done. Dr. Caleb Friedeman, thanks for being with us today.
Caleb Friedeman
It’s been great. David, thank you.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
